[mmaro]

That's a reasonable concern, but at this meta level there are two things going in cryonics' favor: there's a good chance you're overconfident about its non-utility[1], and there's a chance that your reanimation comes much earlier than expected, so the cumulative risks don't add up to much.

And FWIW, Alcor and Cryonics Institute don't require power for storage; they require deliveries of liquid nitrogen. I don't think either facility has much earthquake/tsunami risk, either.

[1] Personally, I would want to be > 99% sure about this before completely giving up on cryonics.

[dpark]

So much hand waving...

On what basis do you claim there's a good chance I'm overconfident about cryonics' non-utility? I could say your overconfident in its utility and be standing on ground at leas as firm a you.

There's also a chance that you never get reanimated, or that you're reanimated by future humans who torture you to see how ancient humans react to stimulus, or any number of other possibilities that make cryonics unattractive.

[dpark]

Ugh, too late to edit. your -> you're; leas as firm a -> least as firm as

I'm blaming autocorrect for these...

[nknight]

> Personally, I would want to be > 99% sure about this before completely giving up on cryonics.

That same logic can be used to justify spending inordinate resources on any sort of snake oil. Why should cryonics be special?

[jpulgarin]

You don't know what logic he used, only his conclusion.

Perhaps the logic is:

* If something is agreed to have a chance of extending my life for thousands of years by more than 5% of people whose thinking I respect and

* it costs less than 200k and

* there are no obvious people who are profiting from this then

* I want to be >99% sure about it not being viable before giving up on it.

[dpark]

Since religion promises eternal life, and a large number of respected scientists are religious, I assume that you are Christian, right? Also Muslim? And maybe Jewish?

[jpulgarin]

What? I never said I used that logic.

[dpark]

Yeah, you did.

If something is agreed to have a chance of extending my life for thousands of years by more than 5% of people whose thinking I respect and

Check

it costs less than 200k and

Check

there are no obvious people who are profiting from this then

Check

This is at least as true for religion (which you can practice for free) as it is for cryonics (which is a business venture).

I want to be >99% sure about it not being viable before giving up on it.

In what way can you be >99% sure that religion is not viable? What logic allows you to believe in cryonics but not religion, given that each have basically the same scientific underpinnings (which is to say, none at all).

EDIT: Unless you meant that the logic you described was not yours, but just mmaro's, in which case fair enough.

[nknight]

The logic he described belonged to no one. Neither he nor mmaro actually claimed it. It was an entirely hypothetical scenario in which some people might see mmaro's statements as something other than selling snake oil (I certainly wouldn't, it still wouldn't amount to "evidence" of any sort, just more fuzzy hope).

[nknight]

He hasn't made that argument or anything close to it. The most he's said/implied is that $50/month is worth it. If he has some other logic, he'll need to share it if he hopes to convince anyone. Otherwise, he's just a guy standing on the sidewalk with a bottle of magic pills.